Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Philippe 18:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

"In popular culture" article that contains 15-month-old synthesis and POV violations Sceptre ^(talk) 18:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. AfD is for second time. Interesting, notable and documented article. Yopie 18:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
• Delete Interesting yes, but it's a synthesis of ideas laced with original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• AFD is not cleanup This comment is neither keep or delete. It's a notable subject; though I'm tempted to say this article should go so a real article can take it's place. As written it seems to be a smorgasborg of unlinked items with no common theme or narrative to the prose. It is well-referenced and some of the information is obvious gold. This article may not be the best place for it though. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Keep. None of the issues raised by the nominator are reasons for deletion. Clean it up, remove the POV and OR. The topic is encyclopedic. We have dozens of similar "...in popular culture" articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is one of the most carefully cited popular culture articles on Wikipedia. We just went through a deletion fight a few months ago and I doubt there is anything new to be said. Dking (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep- interesting, with lots of cites. Merkin's mum 22:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Nominator may not realize it, but these are improvement arguments, not deletion arguments. These things can be fixed via regular editing processes; there's no reason for this to be at AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. yeah I know I often vote 'keep' at these things but there will be scholarly syntheses on the subject avaiable. Any BLP violations should be dealt with appropriately. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as discriminate and verifiable article concerning notable and interesting topic. The article has plenty of references and is not merely a list. Please also note that while the last discussion closed as "no consensus," it was marred by at least one (User:BabyDweezil) banned account's participation. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as combination soapbox and cruft-magnet. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cruft" is never a valid argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But "it's interesting" is? --Badger Drink (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, as part of a larger argument, i.e. one that acknowledges all the references and presentational benefits of the article. No one takes "cruft" arguments seriously. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, let's just go with SOAPBOX. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is not a problem in the case of this article. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Valuable. Needs work, but should be kept. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only if Delete unless we want a fine example of yet another pseudoliterary kitchen sink drainpipe for editors to indulge their personal predilections freed from the constraints of standard editorial oversight that tends to lead to such annoyances as coherency, thematic threads, logic and neutrality. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait a minute... that wasn't a keep at all! :-P --Explodicle (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• wait a minute- that depends what he means- this is Wikipedia!:) Merkin's mum 22:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A keep is a keep as far as I'm concerned! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... wait... Wikipedia isn't a pseudoliterary kitchen sink for editors to indulge in personal predilections? I certainly wouldn't call it a literary fountain of unbiased knowledge. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People do come here for this article... Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, sometimes you just cant look away. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While I hate 'X in popular culture' articles, this one is actually pretty good; the article seems to make its case that this is a notable element of pop culture, and contains plenty of relevant, verifiable examples. I'm sure it could be improved, but it's not deleteworthy. Terraxos (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is no deadline and no matter what state the article may be in it is valuable enough to warrant being kept. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:SOFIXIT --Haemo (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
• Delete It is not encyclopedic, per WP:NOT. The subject or THEME, in this case, is far too broad - lending itself to POV determinations for inclusion, synthesis of ideas and original research. This subject matter is more appropriate to a thesis, not an encyclopedia article. Why not build them a soap box to stand on? LOL A potential magnet for trouble! Dump it! Dump it - quick! LOL! Cleo123 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is encyclopedic per WP:IS. The subject/theme is not overly broad and so long as it is cited, it is not pov. Material cited in sources is not a synthesis or original research either and WP:UGH is not a reason for deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has sources. Has consensus. Has focus. Needs cleanup. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any problems with the topic itself. Tolstoy really should be added to the list of cult leaders who contributed to popular culture. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep article discusses a notable subject, references exist and others should be available; just needs some pruning. Shell ^babelfish 22:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not original research, though. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not WP:HOPELESS. Sounds like yet another "I don't like popular culture" nomination. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original synthesis of existing research. Too broad a topic and therefore unmaintainable and potentially infinitely expandable. Thousands of references to NRM's in literature and popular culture probably exist. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A synthesis of existing research, i.e. secondary sources is encyclopedic. THAT is not considered a problem on Wikipedia. Nor is the existence of multiple references. In fact all of that is reason for keeping. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable and sourced. POV and OR problems if any should be fixed by adding more sourced material.Biophys (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.